Point of Law: Motor Vehicles – Accident claim - Where violation of policy conditions was proved as the vehicle was being plied without valid permit, directed the insurance company to pay compensation to the claimants with a right to recover the same from the insured.

JUDGMENT

1. The appellant insurance company has challenged the award dated 31.03.2016, passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Srinagar (for short “the Tribunal”), whereby a sum of Rs.9.00/- lacs along with interest @7.5% has been awarded in favour of the claimants/respondent Nos.1 and 2 on account of death of one Riyaz Ahmad Chopan and the awarded sum has been made payable by the appellant insurance company with a right to recover the same from the owners of the offending vehicle i.e. respondent Nos.4&5 herein.

2. Briefly stated, case of the claimants before the Tribunal was that on 17.01.2011, deceased Riyaz Ahmad Chopan was knocked down by a vehicle bearing registration No.JK01J-7671 that was being driven rashly and negligently by its driver i.e. respondent No.3 herein. As a result of the accident, the deceased succumbed to the injuries and an FIR bearing No.99/2010 for offences under Section 279, 304-A RPC was registered with Police Station, Kunzar. Claimants happen to be the parents of the deceased who, as per the claim petition, was a young person aged 27 years working as a Rehbar-e-Taleem Teacher. Claimants sought compensation in the amount of Rs.21.50/- lacs from the owners/driver and the insurer of the offending vehicle claiming that the deceased was earning Rs.10,000/- per month.

3. The claim petition was resisted by the appellant insurance company by filing its reply thereto and even other respondents filed their written statement to the claim petition. The appellant insurance company, while admitting that the offending vehicle was insured with it at the relevant time, claimed breach of policy conditions on the part of insured and also denied the occurrence.

4. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed:

(1) Whether on 26.12.2010, a vehicle (Tata Sumo) bearing registration No.JK01J-7671, being driven by respondent No.1 rashly and negligently on Kunzar - Magam road and on reaching near Batapora on the Kunzar - Magam road lost control over his vehicle3 and struck against one Riyaz Ahmad Chopan (hereinafter deceased) who was standing on the correct side of the road, causing thereby multiple fatal injuries to the deceased and be succumbed to the injuries on way to hospital? OPP.

(2) Whether the respondent No.1 driver was permitted by respondents 2&3, owners knowingly to drive the offending vehicle with invalid and ineffective license and other vehicular documents like RP, FC etc. on the material date of accident, if yes, the insured has committed breach of policy stipulations absolved the respondent no.4, the company from its liability on account of petitioners claim? (OPR-4)

(3) In case the issue no.1 is proved in affirmative, to what amount of compensation the petitioners are entitled to, from whom and in what proportion? OPP.

(4) Relief? OP parties.

5. The learned Tribunal, after recording the evidence, came to the conclusion that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver, the respondent No.3 herein. It was further found by the learned Tribunal that the vehicle in question was being driven without a route permit at the relevant time and, as such, there was a breach of policy conditions on the part of the insured. After finding claimants entitled to compensation of Rs.9.00/- lacs with interest @ 7.5% per annum, the learned Tribunal fastened the liability to pay the awarded sum upon the appellant insurance company with a right to recover the same from the owners of the offending vehicle.

6. The appellant insurance company has challenged the award on several grounds but during the course of hearing, the learned counsel for the appellant has laid emphasis on the contention that the learned Tribunal, after finding that there was breach of policy conditions on the part of insured in the instant case, should have exonerated the appella